Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plots within Plots

ne of the primary means of
immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a
state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be
known… nothing of significance, that is.– E. Martin Schotz, HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US (1996)

North Tower destruction on 9/11

9/11
appears to have been a classic “false flag” operation in which an attack
is planned by one source but blamed upon another. In this case, the
evidence suggests neo-cons in the Department of Defense and their allies
in the Mossad were actually responsible for the execution of the
atrocities of 9/11. That story was buried, however, in a surfeit of
alternative explanations for which the evidence was far more tenuous but
which were of much greater political utility. And in each case,
qualified experts uncovered evidence that induced sincere but false
beliefs that they were “the real deal”.

The
situation encountered with regard to 9/11 turns out to be far more
sophisticated than the efforts that were made to divert attention from
the conspirators in the case of the assassination of JFK, where “Track
#1”, as we might call it, implicated Lee Harvey Oswald as “the lone
assassin”. Track #2 suggested that he working for Fidel Castro and that
Cuba had done it. Track #3 was redirected domestically to encompass
the mob, while Track #4 targeted the Soviet Union. But these were
superficial distractions for which most of the evidence was flimsy and
inconclusive. 9/11 presents a greater challenge to unpack, because in
this case, planted evidence was more extensive and appeared to be real.

Deep
black covert operations, of course, are by their very nature shrouded in
layers of secrecy, protected by the “need to know” and sensitive
compartmented information (SCI). Since WWII, however, major covert
operations have become increasingly sophisticated and new models have
been developed which take full advantage of the extensive national
security laws and practices guaranteed under the National Security Acts
of 1947 and 1952. The experts who create these plots are specialists in
PSYOPS, which entails accessing, stimulating and manipulating the
subconscious minds of the target population as a single unit in order to
create beliefs and instill motivations in the public mind that are
necessary to support of their actions but would normally be viewed as
unacceptable.

When
basic primal survival fears are activated in the “group mind” of the
masses, this fear induces the motivation for a population to willingly
give up their rights and liberty even for merely the promise of more
protection from the boogeymen. This principle is the basis for
successful PSYOPS. The use of multi-track intermeshed, deep-black covert
operations also creates massive cognitive dissonance among federal
investigators, private researchers and the public, which typically
eventually results in folks abandoning the issue and going away in
“quiet desperation”, which is the actual intended result of those who
plan and activate them. This is related to Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs”.

Deep Black/False Flag Ops

The “shroud of secrecy” they afford provides perfect cover to plan
and carry out these sophisticated multi-track deep black covert
operations and keep them secret–even from those operatives who are
involved as well as the government’s own agents who do the
investigations. The “national security” cover can be dropped on any
matter that is at risk of being disclosed to the public and then can be
invoked again at any time. Thus, alphabets who discover what really
happened can be silenced and the media can be gagged with the delivery
of a “national security letter”.

One of the greatest advances in deep black, false flag/stand-down
covert operations has been the development of a new, more complex
design, best referred to as “multi-track, enmeshed”. This involves
using a complicated design with independent covert operations, each of
which could individually do the job if they were actually “taken live”.
These operations, however, are designed to be enmeshed at the nexus of
the actual target, at which point some are de-activated and one or more
taken live.

This can completely confound even the most seasoned investigators,
thus creating so much conflict among researchers that these emergent
conflicts between them provide the best cover possible for what was
actually done and how it was done. Multi-track and interwoven deep
black covert operations are therefore designed from the very start to
obfuscate the actual operation that is selected and taken live, thereby
denying most intel and government officials as well as the public any
real knowledge of the actual operational purpose and information about
the covert operation or why a particular covert operation was taken live
as the predominant op.

As an illustration, when we attempt to peel the 9/11 onion, we
discover there are at least five different alternative theories for
which evidence has emerged, where each of them has sincere supporters
who falsely believe that they have found critical evidence about that
happened on 9/11. Each of these is actually one plot of many plots,
which were deliberately contrived to creating sufficient confusion that
everything about 9/11 turns out to be believable and nothing is
knowable. Such deep black covert op designs can thereby provide
sufficient “after the fact” cover to keep the truth buried in confusion
forever.

Palestinians Did It

Cover Story #1: Palestinians Did It! Efforts were being
made before the Twin Towers were destroyed to imply Palestinian
responsibility for commandeering those planes and committing those
crimes, which may have taken the lives of as many as 3,000 citizens and
employees. Those who were watching closely saw archival footage of
Palestinians rejoicing on a festive occasion being broadcast as though
it were contemporaneous to convey the impression—meant to be
indelible—that the Palestinian people had taken pleasure at inflicting
misery on America.

An early report from CNN even asserted that the Democratic Front for
the Liberation of Palestine had claimed responsibility for 9/11—and that
was before Flight 175 had hit the South Tower! So during that brief
interval between the first hit on the North Tower at 8:46:40 and the
second on the South Tower at 9:03:11, a propaganda operation to
implicate the Palestinians was well under way. The immediate
availability of this report and video footage indicates the direction in
which responsibility for these attacks was originally intended to be
cast.

And that might have become the official cover story, were it not
for observant residents near Liberty State Park in New Jersey who
watched as five young men,
dressed in Arab garb, filmed the destruction of the Twin Towers,
cheering and celebrating, which came across as odd behavior, under the
circumstances. When they were apprehended in a white van from Urban
Moving Systems, the driver would inform the arresting officer that they
were not the problem: “We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your
problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem.”

They were found to have $4,700 in cash, box cutters, and foreign
passports in their possession. Urban Moving Systems would subsequently
be identified as a Mossad front. After 71 days of incarceration, the
Dancing Israelis would be released and return to Israel, where three of
them would go on TV there and explain that their purpose had been to
document the destruction of the Twin Towers. Once they had been
arrested, however, the story was quietly dropped. It was just too
revealing that Israel had been profoundly involved in the events of
9/11.

Arab Hijackers Did It

Cover Story #2: 19 Arab Hijackers Did It. If these
attacks could not be blamed on the Palestinians without revealing
Israeli complicity, the fall back was effortless. We know “the official
account”—that nineteen Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial
carriers, outfoxed the most sophisticated air defense system in the
world and perpetrated these atrocities under the control of a guy in a
cave in Afghanistan. It would turn out that 15 of the 19 alleged terrorists were from Saudi Arabia and none were from Iraq.

But that would not matter in the grand scheme of things, where
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld would push 9/11 as a justification for attacking
Iraq. Not only was the public being fed false information about weapons
of mass destruction and collusion with al Qaeda, but the national press
was oblivious to the obvious question that remained unaddressed by
government officials or the main stream media: If 15 of 19 hijackers
were from Saudi Arabia, two from the UAE, one from Lebanon and Egypt,
then why were we attacking Iraq?

Osama bin Laden with al Qaeda

Even our own FBI would eventually acknowledge that it had no “hard
evidence” that Osama bin Laden had had anything to do with 9/11. But the
range of evidence that exonerates al Qaeda and implicates the
Bush/Cheney administration in these crimes has become as broad as it is
deep. Elias Davidsson,
for example, has shown that the US government had never produced
evidence that the alleged (Muslim) “hijackers” were even aboard those
four planes. David Ray Griffin,
the leading expert on 9/11 in the world today, has shown that the
alleged phone calls from those planes were faked, where even our own FBI
has confirmed that Barbara Olsen never spoke to her husband, Ted.

Leslie Raphael has offered reason after reason for concluding that the Jules Naudet film was staged. The evidence that no planes crashed in Shanksville or hit the Pentagon is beyond reasonable doubt, where others have shown that the videos of Flight 175 hitting
the South Tower are fake, which may have been a brilliant stroke to
generate dissension within the 9/11 Truth movement, since the truth of
video fakery has proven to be politically divisive. The scientific
evidence disproving the official account is also abundant and compelling. Given what we know now, anyone who continues to believe the “official account” of 9/11 is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired.

Pakistan/Turkey/Saudi Arabia

Pakistani General Mahmoud Ahmed

Cover Story #3. The Pakistanis Did It. This track was based
upon the supposition that well-financed Pakistani intel were able to
buy expensive “K Street” lobbyists and gain influence with high
officials in the government and Department of Defense, who had much to
gain from a “staged terror attack” such as 9/11. It was the next layer
of the onion to be peeled when and if the Arab hijackers story wouldn’t
work any longer and was initiated by the revelation that Omar Sheikh, a
British-born Islamist militant, had wired $100,000 before the 9/11
attacks to Mohammed Atta, allegedly the lead hijacker, at the direction
General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI). As Michael Meecher has observed,
it is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and
brought to trial on this count. It certainly raises the prospect that
the ISI was deeply involved and possibly responsible for the events of
9/11. Even if it were true, however, it cannot begin to account for the
causal nexus that brought about 9/11 or identify those who were “pulling
the strings”.

“Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers,” Meecher writes, “was
actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level
meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security
council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman,
the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was
exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the
hijackers, he was forced to “retire” by President Pervez Musharraf. Why
hasn’t the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?”
Although a number of reasons have
been advanced for not taking this story seriously, Meecher mentions a
number of sources who have information that might or might not implicate
the ISI and expose those who were behind 9/11, the most important of
whom appears to be former FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, who has recently been speaking out.

Edmonds, a 33-year-old Turkish-American linguist, who is fluent in
both Turkish and Azerbaijani, has tried to blow the whistle on the
cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who
orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. While Sibel has been under gag orders
forbidding her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the
people or of the countries involved, she has said. “My translations of
the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and
date-specific information … if they were to do real investigations, we
would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this
country [the US] … and believe me, they will do everything to cover this
up”.

Revelations claimed to emerge from her case have been described as being explosive, including “that foreign operatives who were working in the translation department been tried to recruit her for their operations; that there exists a nuclear spy ring aided and abetted by high ranking US government officials who
have been selling America’s nuclear secrets on the black market; that
foreign language intelligence directly pertaining to 9/11 was deliberately withheld from FBI agents in the field; that Osama bin Laden had an ‘intimate relationship’ with
the United Stages government right up until 9/11.” While most of this
is probably true, the theory of the case that she appears to imply—that
Turkey (with assistance from actors from Pakistan, and Afghanistan and
Saudi Arabia) had been using Bin Laden and the Taliban as a proxy
terrorist army to promote its own agenda—may be true in its own right,
but based upon the totality of what we know now, does not begin to
approach an explanation for the stand-down by NORAD, for example, or of
how the demolitions were situated or the post-attack cover-ups.

The US “Let it Happen”

Cover Story #4: It was allowed to happen. The distinction
between “LIHOP” (let it happen on purpose) and “MIHOP“ (made it happen
on purpose) has been powerfully reinforced by the “Able Danger” contretemps.
As a highly classified, anti-terrorist intelligence operation, Able
Danger fell under Special Operations (SOCOM) and Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA) control. When claims arose that the US had had advanced
knowledge of 9/11 and had allowed it to happen, a 16-month investigation
by the Senate Intelligence committee reported in December 2006 that
there had been no knowledge of the 9/11 attacks by US authorities.

The evidence, however, indicates that was not the case—and, indeed,
that the events of 9/11 were orchestrated and staged by elements within
the Department of Defense with help from their friends in the Mossad.
As the 10th observance of 9/11 approaches, we know that there were a
minimum of two independent deep cover covert operations which were
operating on dual track, parallel and also interwoven. The first one
was the creation and tracking—principally by the Mossad—of some “low
tech” terrorist cells, which were set up, financed, and trained by US
and other intelligence agencies.

Coleen Rowley (center)

“Able Danger” discovered this low-tech terror cell sub-track, which
we can call “Track A”. The operation was designed to be discovered to
create false cover, so that when 9/11 succeeded, it could be shown by
information discovered by a bona fide intelligence group that this
terror cell was responsible. That would be the role played by Lt. Col.
Anthony Shaffer, other members of the “Able Danger” team, and Coleen
Rowley of the FBI in Minneapolis. Track A, however, was designed to be
discovered and then the investigation stopped, creating the image of
high-level US incompetence that had allowed this terror cell to succeed
in hijacking aircraft with box-cutters and then flying those aircraft
into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

When the folks from “Able Danger” swear that they uncovered “a real
terrorist cell plot”, they are telling the truth. It was set up this
way as a false track. When Coleen Rowley expresses frustration because
she could not obtain a search warrant for the hard drive of Zacarias
Moussaui because he was involved in this terror cell, she was telling
the truth. But Track A was set up as a false track to be terminated
before the 9/11 attacks to provide a convincing cover story for the
highest levels of US intelligence and make the government appear to be
merely hugely incompetent. After all, how could government officials of
this incompetence have staged a successful and effective covert
operation?

The US “Made it Happen”

Actual Story: The US “Made it Happen”. Track B, by
comparison, was a high-tech track designed to use readiness exercises on
9/11, including some 17 anti-terrorist drills on 9/11 that disrupted
communication and coordination between NORAD and the FAA, by taking some
of them live and substituting high-tech weapons in order to target the
Twin Towers and the Pentagon by that means. Track B involved the use of
numerous different demolition means, including incendiaries and multiple
modes of destruction, most of which alone would be insufficient cause
for the detonation of the Twin Towers, which was arguably used to induce
false leads confusing investigators and researchers.

A perfect example turns out to be the “hard science” 9/11 Truth
group’s insistence that nanothermite was the principal element used in
the demolition of the Twin Towers. This position, which has assumed a
status akin to that of a dogma within the 9/11 movement, turns out to be
unsustainable in light of research that has established that nanothermite is non-explosive—or,
at best, a feeble explosive—and cannot have been responsible for
blowing the towers apart, for ejecting massive steel assemblies hundreds
of feet, or for the pulverization of concrete or the destruction of
steel by means of shockwaves. To a bona fide explosives expert, the
claim that nanothermite provided the explosive energy or enough
shockwave velocity to perform these tasks had to be an obvious
deception. If it was deliberately planted to divert research on 9/11
along an ultimately unproductive line, it may have succeeded beyond the
wildest intel dreams as a classic “red herring”.

The clear, green Pentagon lawn: Where’s the plane?

Another example, surprisingly, is the Pentagon attack, where some of
those within the 9/11 community have argued strenuously for not going
there, because the Department of Defense might spring a new video on the
public that proves a Boeing 757 actually did hit the building. The
evidence contradicting that contention is abundant and compelling,
however, including the expert assessment of Major General Albert N. Stubblebine,
USA (ret.), perhaps the world’s leading expert on image analysis and
interpretation, who has concluded that no plane hit the Pentagon. When
you take all the evidence into account, the case against a plane is
staggering, but internal dissension has precluding using it— and other
powerful proofs of governmental fakery —and has taken this evidence out
of the public domain:

“From the photographs I have analyzed very, very carefully,”
Stubblebine has explained, “it was not an airplane.” During an interview
in Germany, he explained that there should have been wing marks on the
façade of the Pentagon. “If it had wings, it would have left wing
marks. [There are] those who claim that the plane tilted and hit the
ground first and lost a wing. But airplanes have two wings, and he
could not find indications of any wing in any of those photographs.”
Regarding the Twin Towers, he added, “Look at the buildings falling—they
didn”t fall down because of an airplane hit them. They fell down
because explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for
God’s sake.”

Whistleblowing as Deception

The politics of 9/11, however, are far more murky than the science.
So when folks from Able Danger swear that they uncovered a real terror
cell plot, they are telling the truth. It was set up this way as a
false track. When a Colleen Rowley expresses frustration because she
could not get a search warrant for Moussaui’s hard-drive because he was
involved in this terror cell, she is telling the truth. When a Sibel
Edmonds is gagged by court order and tries to tell how certain how
administration officials were communicating with this terror cell, she
is telling the truth. Indeed, the effort to mislead our own experts
even extended to Richard Clarke, who has explained that he himself had
been given the false impression that, apart from a few analysts, the CIA
had been unaware of what was going on prior to 9/11, which was intended
to support the theory of US incompetence.

Clarke, who was the nation’s leading anti-terrorism expert, recently observed,
“It’s not as I originally thought, which was that one lonely CIA
analyst got this information and didn’t somehow recognize the
significance of it,” Clarke said during an interview. “No, fifty, 5-0,
CIA personnel knew about this. Among the fifty people in CIA who knew
these guys were in the country was the CIA director. … We therefore
conclude that there was a high-level decision inside CIA ordering people
not to share that information. … It is also possible, as some FBI
investigators suspect, the CIA was running a joint venture with Saudi
intelligence in order to get around that restriction … These are only
theories about the CIA’s failures to communicate vital information to
the bureau … Perhaps the agency decided that Saudi intelligence would
have a better chance of recruiting these men than the Americans. That
would leave no CIA fingerprints on the operation as well.”

Indeed, as Ian Henshall has observed, if you substitute the Mossad
for the Saudis, you have the explanation for the dancing Israelis, who
were apprehended for filming and celebrating during the destruction of
the Twin Towers and were released later under orders from Michael
Chertoff, then an advisor Attorney General John Ashcroft and a dual
US-Israel citizen, who would become Director of the new Department of
Homeland Security—which leads directly to reports like those from Dr. Steve Pieczenik that 9/11 was indeed “an inside job” and studies like those from Alan Sabrosky,
Ph.D., who has explain that 9/11 involved complicity between neo-con
Zionists in the Department of Defense and the Mossad, where Israel had
very powerful motives for 9/11 and, along with the Bush/Cheney
administration, has been its primary beneficiary.

But Israel cannot have done this alone. The NORAD “stand down” and
the attack on the Pentagon required complicity at the highest levels of
the Department of Defense. And the benefits to the Bush/Cheney
administration have likewise been enormous. As Patrick Martin has
observed, “Without 9/11, there would be no US occupation of Iraq,
putting an American army squarely at the center of the world’s largest
pool of oil. Without 9/11, there would be no US bases across Central
Asia, guarding the second largest source of oil and gas. And without
9/11, the Bush administration would have been unable to sustain itself
politically, faced with a deteriorating economy and widespread
opposition to its tax cuts for millionaires and social measures to
appease the fundamentalist Christian Right.”

The Fourth Reich

Indeed, the extreme motivation of a small number of radical
Israelis and their lobbies like AIPAC to manipulate US foreign policy in
the Mideast may have created a huge future trap for them in their role
as “classic cutouts”, which can be later exposed in a limited hangout
admission in order to direct blame toward the Mossad and the small
number of radical Jews involved, who do not represent most Jewish folks
at all, thus directing blame away from from those who used them in their
cutout role and who were actually at the top of the command structure.
This limited hangout disclosure could then later be used to blame all
Jews and add them to the large and growing Homeland Security watch-list
list of possible domestic terrorists such as Muslims, fundamentalist
Christians, returning veterans, Ron Paul supporters, Constitutionalists
and tax protestors, and member of any current social group that is
trying to gain exposure and cessation of rampant government corruption
and creeping tyranny of the government at all levels, which of course
encompasses those dedicated to 9/11 Truth.

Richard Clarke, anti-terrorism czar

It does not take a PSYOPS expert to discern the pattern here when Richard Clarke resuscitates the incompetence theory,
according to which the US “let 9/11 happen”. Even on the assumption
that he is sincere, we have a fall-back position intended to minimize
concern for complicity by the Bush/Cheney administration and its friends
in the Mossad—who, moreover, do not necessarily represent the highest
level of control over the atrocities of 9/11. Because Clarke was in the
crucial position of being the nation’s anti-terrorism czar, his
affirmations about incompetence between agencies, such as the CIA and
the FBI, come across to the public and can be widely promoted as
admirable and courageous acts of whistle blowing, when their role in
deceiving the public drowns amidst the anguish and concern that “if only
we had done better” and “we must not let this happen again”, oblivious
of the role that his reports are playing in burying the truth about
9/11.

We have now reached the point in America where any citizen or group
wanting to obtain needed social justice, or the cessation of
undeclared, unprovoked, and unConstitutional wars, in violation of
international law and the UN Charter, are now placed on a secret watch
list and considered as “potential domestic terrorists” by Homeland
Security, which some—with ample justification—view as “The New American
Gestapo.” If the US has been hijacked by offshore corporate and banking
interests, which have their own anti-American agenda and are now in the
process of Nazifying America,
as some astute researchers have suggested, then certainly this could
lead to a “Fourth Reich” run by offshore banks and large international
corporations and we could see a replay of the unlimited persecution of
minorities and special scapegoats such as specific groups such as
Muslims, Jews and Christians who dissent from The New Tyranny.

So if you have wondered why covert operations like 9/11 are so
difficult to unravel or why it is all but impossible to convince the
feds who investigated it that this was actually a US false
flag/stand-down/inside-job, deep-black covert operation, the answer to
that question appears to be that the plan was designed from conception
to obfuscate what happened, not only regarding the public but also the
government’s own experts, who would be assigned to investigate them—and
even to keep most of those who had an actual part in those operations in
the dark, so only those at the highest levels of the government knew
what happened and, even among them, only a few probably knew the full
dimensions of the plan. The objective throughout, accordingly, has
always been to keep the public in a state of uncertainly, where
everything about these events is believable and nothing is
knowable—which is the ultimate objective of disinformation.

Jim Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the
University of Minnesota Duluth, is a former Marine Corps officer and
the founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

Preston James is the pseudonym of a Ph.D. in
social psychology, who has become an expert on psy-ops, “false flag” and
covert operations by the US government.